On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Me getting sick and dying is not equal to me running into your car and you having to pay for the damage yourself.

In both cases the government is FORCING you to put money into a private corporation's pocket.

If the government is going to take absolute control of an industry, then why keep it private? Just fund it through tax dollars and run it like NASA (although the lack of a private entity makes it a lot harder to skim off the top...)

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Underdog

In both cases the government is FORCING you to put money into a private corporation's pocket.

If the government is going to take absolute control of an industry, then why keep it private? Just fund it through tax dollars like NASA (although the lack of a private entity makes it a lot harder to skim off the top...)

How so? I'm not putting money into anyones pocket if I chose not to insure myself and then get sick and die. Well, my family puts money into the hands of the funeral industry but that would happen eventually anyway.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

How so? I'm not putting money into anyones pocket if I chose not to insure myself and then get sick and die.

Um, you're about to not have any choice in the matter...

[u2sarajevo]

Oh I know I'm not.... that's the point.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

People that don't own cars aren't required. A completely illogical counterpoint.

People that don't own bodies that may require healthcare wouldn't be required, either. You know, like dead people.

No logical inconsistency there.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I agree! So let's stop the free flowing health handouts at Parkland that I end up paying for, and the other medical establishments across the country as well! We DO agree!

Awesome.

Nice concept (for the "haves," anyway), but not very Christian.

I notice that I only hear about this country being "founded on Christianity" when it's a convenient argument.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Oh I know I'm not.... that's the point.

I know, I'm agreeing with you about mandatory insurance - I think it's un-American for the government to force people to give their money to a private corporation.

But I also took the opportunity to educate people that a merger of Corporation & State is a primary goal of fascism. People forget that the far-right are pluralists just like the far-left - go far enough in either direction and you're bound to make a circle (that's how Mussolini was put into power by a liberal parliament...)

For everyone screaming "commie!" (not necessarily you), the word of the day is:

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I agree! So let's stop the free flowing health handouts at Parkland that I end up paying for, and the other medical establishments across the country as well! We DO agree!

Awesome.

do you think it is a tenable position for the USA to outright declare: "if you get sick, and have neither health insurance nor the funds to pay for care... then tough beans."?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Nice concept (for the "haves," anyway), but not very Christian.

I notice that I only hear about this country being "founded on Christianity" when it's a convenient argument.

As soon as you find where Christ said anything about using the government to pay for health care, I'll believe you are being sincere here.

[ribosoma]

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

- Benito Mussolini

[rabbitproof]

It's all over, indeed...

http://i.imgur.com/590Ev.png

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Nice concept (for the "haves," anyway), but not very Christian.

I notice that I only hear about this country being "founded on Christianity" when it's a convenient argument.

Hey you guys are the ones that scream separation of church and state. Seems you are using it when it's convenient for you.

It's morally right to take care of our own. Without a doubt. But it's not a moral obligation for the government to legislate that we take care of our own. As a Christian I put more stock in someone helping others(which is a Christ like act), not helping themselves.

I'm not saying let unfortunate people die. In fact I know for a fact that the Christian community will do all that it can to protect those that are less fortunate.

So I donate money to help those less fortunate and continue to do so.

When it's taken from me it's no longer my choice. So any moral stance is hollow there. Put a better way, when it's taken by force from those that wouldn't otherwise help those less fortunate then it's not a moral act. It's stealing. I'm pretty sure we all know that's frowned upon by our Savior.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

do you think it is a tenable position for the USA to outright declare: "if you get sick, and have neither health insurance nor the funds to pay for care... then tough beans."?

If the point was to: a) lower costs of health care and b) help people who have trouble affording health care, it could have been done much more modestly. Let's not pretend this is about that. This is about expanding the power of the federal government. Period.

[mcsluggo]

it could've been done a helluva lot more efficiently/better... no question.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you don't have insurance and you go to Parkland for treatment, it's closer to the same thing than you think.

This is a flawed example. In the car insurance example, you are required to carry liability insurance to pay for bodily injury and property damage that you cause someone else to incur. In the Parkland example, you're assuming that it's the patient's fault they got sick/hurt and don't have the money to pay for treatment. While that might be true in some cases (maybe they ran the red light or smoked the cigarettes), but maybe they didn't. Either way, the example is still flawed because the people at Parkland are still going to receive subsidization under the new legislation. It's not like you're going to be forcing them to buy anything.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

it could've been done a helluva lot more efficiently/better... no question.

Which begs the question of why it was done this way. Of course, I've already answered the question.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Underdog

In both cases the government is FORCING you to put money into a private corporation's pocket.

If the government is going to take absolute control of an industry, then why keep it private? Just fund it through tax dollars and run it like NASA (although the lack of a private entity makes it a lot harder to skim off the top...)

The government didn't take absolute control of the automobile insurance industry.

See my post below. Also, it's worth noting that automobile insurance is handled by the states, not the federal government. Health insurance mandates (if there are to be any) should be as well. The Supreme Court may not stand up and stop this nonsense, but they should. If they don't, it will pave the way for the feds to take over anything and everything they want.

[Underdog]

So, if I don't buy insurance then the government charges me a $695 fine...

What happens if I don't pay the fine, do I go to jail?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The government didn't take absolute control of the automobile insurance industry.

See my post below. Also, it's worth noting that automobile insurance is handled by the states, not the federal government. Health insurance mandates (if there are to be any) should be as well. The Supreme Court may not stand up and stop this nonsense, but they should. If they don't, it will pave the way for the feds to take over anything and everything they want.

Fair point, but it's still a government entity forcing you to pay a private one...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Which begs the question of why it was done this way. Of course, I've already answered the question.

no, really you haven't at all... you have thrown out platitudes that would've applied to ANY bill that passed.


what happened was that the Obama admin thought they were learning the lesson from the clinton health-care reform probelems, and backed off to let the legislature take full ownership of the process. When congressmen got hold of it horsetrading (trying to get ANY republican votes/blue dog votes PLUS extreme left votes ... AND just the greedy bastages that see ANY major legislation as a pigs trough to be exploited) ate away at many of the difficult (but useful) aspects of the legislation... and you end up with something that is designed to irritate as few as possible, and by thus by definition SATISFIES almost nobody.

Obama should've just taken control of the process from the start. He is actually a helluva lot more pragmatic and centrist in most areas than ANYBODY on this board gives him credit for, i am sure that the NSC could've crafted a vastly superior bill. No question. Instead it ended up as milquetoast... and this whole debate will have to happen AGAIN in 5 or 10 years.

(btw... the day the republicans jumped en-mass and with unity onto the "death panels" ship... was the day it became clear that there was ZERO interest from the GOP in actually influencing the legislation. it was pure political posturing from that point on.. BOTH GOP and DEMS in congress showed truly sucky form on this issue... it would be nice if BOTH could be punished appropriately in November)

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

If the point was to: a) lower costs of health care and b) help people who have trouble affording health care, it could have been done much more modestly. Let's not pretend this is about that. This is about expanding the power of the federal government. Period.

I just finished reading The Trouble with Tom: The Strange Afterlife and Times of Thomas Paine. He was a truly remarkable man and, because of his views on government and religion, this Founding Father was completely wiped from our historical narrative.

He had a keen sense of what we were/are up against in the State and those who control it. This quote really blew me away:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Perhaps the reason the institution of government is so blatantly screwing its constituents lies in the lack of integrity and accountability of said constituents. An upright and moral human is not served by government save his own self-governance. While "conservatives" sat idly by for eight years of genocide in the Middle East, "liberals" cried out for war crimes tribunals. The two sides engaged in banter, waiting for their chance to be represented by their team... and those liberals got their wish. We are still killing people in the Middle East, the exact same plans laid out by NGOs and think tanks for a tightly-controlled fascist utopia decades ago are still unfolding... hell, it's almost like politics is a huge crock of horsesh!t designed to distract people from the fact that government was never designed to benefit them in any way, whatsoever.

It seems that one of the most important functions of politics is the destruction of language. "Liberals" have been decrying the re-branding of torture as "rendition" and illegal war as "spreading democracy" for years. But the PR machine that gave us those gems is still in evidence today. And members of one side of the coin feel all warm and snuggly in their willful ignorance, while members of the other side scream for more adequate representation. They want their side lying to them. A symbol of a jackass or an elephant seems to determine whether they will throw roses or rotten tomatoes at the actors in the play. I have always been more interested in the director and the writer. It would appear that the mutation of the State is proceeding independently from the bread and circuses of the political spectacle. Yet some still cling to big daddy for protection. They will vote. They will gloat. They will lie to themselves. And they will suffer dearly for it. Welcome to the present. Baby, meet bath water.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Underdog

So, if I don't buy insurance then the government charges me a $695 fee...

What happens if I don't pay the fee, do I go to jail?

My understanding is that they'll charge you the fine if you can't prove health insurance coverage when you file your tax return. Of course, there's a big difference between the IRS fining you and collecting it. I'm sure a whole "we can get your health insurance penalties reduced by 50%" cottage industry will spring up.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no, really you haven't at all... you have thrown out platitudes that would've applied to ANY bill that passed.


what happened was that the Obama admin thought they were learning the lesson from the clinton health-care reform probelems, and backed off to let the legislature take full ownership of the process. When congressmen got hold of it horsetrading (trying to get ANY republican votes/blue dog votes PLUS extreme left votes ... AND just the greedy bastages that see ANY major legislation as a pigs trough to be exploited) ate away at many of the difficult (but useful) aspects of the legislation... and you end up with something that is designed to irritate as few as possible, and by thus by definition SATISFIES almost nobody.

Obama should've just taken control of the process from the start. He is actually a helluva lot more pragmatic and centrist in most areas than ANYBODY on this board gives him credit for, i am sure that the NSC could've crafted a vastly superior bill. No question. Instead it ended up as milquetoast... and this whole debate will have to happen AGAIN in 5 or 10 years.

(btw... the day the republicans jumped en-mass and with unity onto the "death panels" ship... was the day it became clear that there was ZERO interest from the GOP in actually influencing the legislation. it was pure political posturing from that point on.. BOTH GOP and DEMS in congress showed truly sucky form on this issue... it would be nice if BOTH could be punished appropriately in November)

This bills sets the stage for the debate which you say will happen again in 5-10 years. And it virtually guarantees that the next step is to single payer. If you think Obama cares that he had to take this step so that the frog wouldn't jump out of the pot, I'll just agree to disagree.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Fair point, but it's still a government entity forcing you to pay a private one...

No, they're not. You are under no pressure to own and operate an automobile. Insurance is simply the cost of operating a car, no different than the cost of inspections and registration.

And no different than the choice to own a house.

[mcsluggo]

While I am not in the "we" discussion here (i am not a republican)... I think many Davis Frum's strategic observations here are on teh mark.

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

No, they're not. You are under no pressure to own and operate an automobile. Insurance is simply the cost of operating a car, no different than the cost of inspections and registration.

Except inspection and registration money goes to the government, your insurance goes to a private company...

If I was sending my checks to the Texas State Department of Automobile Insurance, it might be a different story (well, the difference between fascism and socialism, but certainly nothing resembling free ownership of property...)

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Except inspection and registration money goes to the government, your insurance goes to a private company...

If I was sending my checks to the Texas State Department of Automobile Insurance, it might be a different story (well, the difference between fascism and socialism, but certainly nothing resembling free ownership of property...)

Inspection money goes to the government? That's an honest question, I don't really know. I certainly pay it to a private company.

Regardless, there's still the option to not own that property. It's an important point in distinguishing it from the requirement to buy health insurance simply because you're alive. That, to my knowledge, is absolutely unprecedented, and an incredibly slippery slope.

[rabbitproof]

Am I missing something? Don't we all pay for police and firefighters (while alive and able)? What's the ambulance?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Am I missing something? Don't we all pay for police and firefighters (while alive and able)? What's the ambulance?

Property taxes pay for those, no? Are you required to own property? Sales tax too, I believe.

Again, not a tax for being alive. And even then, as Underdog pointed out, being forced to pay to a private company is still different from being taxed.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Inspection money goes to the government? That's an honest question, I don't really know. I certainly pay it to a private company.

Regardless, there's still the option to not own that property. It's an important point in distinguishing it from the requirement to buy health insurance simply because you're alive. That, to my knowledge, is absolutely unprecedented, and an incredibly slippery slope.

I 100% agree that having to buy health insurance simply because you're alive is BS.

I also think that having to pay the government money for any reason to own personal property of any kind is just as bad. I guess the difference between me and everyone else is that I'm just as uncomfortable with mandatory car insurance as I am with mandatory health insurance (sorry, I don't watch or read mainstream spin media so I have no idea how the partisan lines are currently framed in this debate - I just calls 'em like I sees 'em...)

What next, mandatory homeowners insurance? Mandatory pet insurance? When does the government stop mandating and get the hell out of our personal lives?

The only capable use the government can serve is keeping the borders safe (fail) and economy humming (fail).

Wake me up when the real issues become relevant again...

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I 100% agree that having to buy health insurance simply because you're alive is BS.

I also think that having to pay the government money for any reason to own personal property of any kind is just as bad. I guess the difference between me and everyone else is that I'm just as uncomfortable with mandatory car insurance as I am with mandatory health insurance (sorry, I don't watch or read mainstream spin media so I have no idea how the partisan lines are currently framed in this debate - I just calls 'em like I sees 'em...)

What next, mandatory homeowners insurance? Mandatory pet insurance? When does the government stop mandating and get the hell out of our personal lives?

The only capable use the government can serve is keeping the borders safe (fail) and economy humming (fail).

Wake me up when the real issues become relevant again...

Meh...I think the auto insurance thing is different. If they mandated that you had to have full coverage, that's one thing. But mandating that you have insurance to cover whatever damage you may do to others is different.

It's no different than mandating that you have to pay for testing and licensing before operating it. It's for the safety and well being of others.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Meh...I think the auto insurance thing is different. If they mandated that you had to have full coverage, that's one thing. But mandating that you have insurance to cover whatever damage you may do to others is different.

It's no different than mandating that you have to pay for testing and licensing before operating it. It's for the safety and well being of others.

I guess I don't view free ownership of property as being incremental like that.

(distribution of property is a different thing altogether...)

[rabbitproof]

I think that sort of argument is silly (you don't have to drive if you don't want to be forced to pay for auto insurance). Technically, you only get taxed if you work, right?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I think that sort of argument is silly (you don't have to drive if you don't want to be forced to pay for auto insurance). Technically, you only get taxed if you work, right?

How is that silly? You own property in an area, thus you are taxed for the municipal costs for that area.

As with auto insurance, no one is forcing you to drive, and many people do not. And to UD's point, owning a car is in fact free. You are free to drive your car on your private property with no inspection, no registration and no insurance. But if you wish to use the roadways, that's where the required cost comes to play. Seems like a technicality I suppose, but it's an important disctinction.

And again, if they ever started requiring full coverage insurance, or home owners insurance, then I'm right there with you (UD). THAT would truly be akin to requiring someone to buy health insurance. The whole "this is a really good idea, so we're going to MAKE you do it" argument.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

While I am not in the "we" discussion here (i am not a republican)... I think many Davis Frum's strategic observations here are on teh mark.


http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

So it's talk radio's fault? (BTW, the observations about talk radio wanting conflict are basically true.)

I guess the reason I don't agree with you (or Davis Frum) is that it seems to me that the Republicans made quite a few alternative proposals, all of which were rebuffed. The universal mandate (with or without public option) was correctly seen as a stepping stone to a single payer system, and the Democrats weren't going to compromise on that.

Bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the national Republican party. I just don't see what they could have realistically done to achieve compromise in this instance.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

No, they're not. You are under no pressure to own and operate an automobile. Insurance is simply the cost of operating a car, no different than the cost of inspections and registration.

.

Correct...whereas this bill is a tax for you being alive. It is your "license" to live.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by jthig32

And again, if they ever started requiring full coverage insurance, or home owners insurance, then I'm right there with you (UD). THAT would truly be akin to requiring someone to buy health insurance.

Right.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

What next, mandatory homeowners insurance? Mandatory pet insurance? When does the government stop mandating and get the hell out of our personal lives?.

I expect there will be a mandatory carbon exhaling insurance. So that your poisoniess carbon footprint will not endanger anyone else. They'll just tack it onto the mandatory "being alive" tax.

[chumdawg]

The whole idea behind requiring folks to buy insurance is to get those folks paying into the system the whole time and not just waiting until they're probably about to need it.

Those of you opposed to the idea, would you support a system where you chose whether or not you wanted to buy the insurance...but if you went for some time without it you would have to pay to pay a significant startup fee (a means of collecting the money you didn't pay in) once you decided you wanted coverage going forward?

That system should be plenty amenable to you, I would think. If you don't ever want the insurance (like not putting a car on the road), you aren't out one red cent.

[dude1394]

I"m more amenable to having people play for their medical care...however they desire it...since it does no damage to anyone if they do not pay/purchase it.